Friday, December 19, 2008

Remember Our Troops

Your cell phone is in your pocket.
He clutches the cross hanging on his chain next to his dog tags.
cid:1.2422963558@web30505.mail.mud.yahoo.com
You talk trash about your friends or family.
He knows he may not see some of his buddies again.
cid:2.2422963559@web30505.mail.mud.yahoo.com
You walk down the street and get annoyed at the barking dogs.
He patrols the streets, searching for insurgents and terrorists.
cid:3.2422963559@web30505.mail.mud.yahoo.com
We sometimes complain about how hot it is.
He wears his heavy gear, not daring to take off his helmet to wipe his brow.
cid:4.2422963559@web30505.mail.mud.yahoo.com
We go out to lunch, and complain because the restaurant got our order wrong.
He doesn't get to eat today.
cid:5.2422963559@web30505.mail.mud.yahoo.com
Your kids or you worry about the label on your clothing.
He wears the same things for weeks, but makes sure his weapons are clean.&nb sp;
cid:6.2422963559@web30505.mail.mud.yahoo.com
You go to the mall and get your hair redone.
He doesn't have time to brush his teeth today.
cid:7.2422963559@web30505.mail.mud.yahoo.com
We get angry because our appointment ran 5 minutes over.
He's told he will be held over an extra 2 months.
cid:8.2422963559@web30505.mail.mud.yahoo.com
You call your friend and set a dinner date.
He waits for the mail to see if there is a letter from home.
cid:9.2422963559@web30505.mail.mud.yahoo.com
You hug and kiss your wife or husband, like you do everyday.
He holds his letter close and smells his love's perfume.
cid:10.2422963559@web30505.mail.mud.yahoo.com
We roll our eyes as a baby cries.
He gets a letter with pictures of his new child, and wonders if they'll ever meet.
cid:11.2422963559@web30505.mail.mud.yahoo.com
Some criticize our government, and say that war never solves anything.
He sees the innocent tortured and killed by their own people and remembers why he is fighting.
cid:12.2422963559@web30505.mail.mud.yahoo.com
Some hear the jokes about the war, and make fun of men like him.
He hears the gunfire, bombs and screams of the wounded.
cid:13.2422963559@web30505.mail.mud.yahoo.com
We see only what the media wants us to see.
He sees the broken bodies lying around him.
cid:14.2422963559@web30505.mail.mud.yahoo.com
Our kids are asked to go to the store by their parents. They don't.
He does exactly what he is told even if it puts his life in danger.
cid:15.2422963559@web30505.mail.mud.yahoo.com
You crawl into your soft bed, with down pillows, and get comfortable.
He tries to sleep but gets woken by mortars and helicopters all night long.
cid:17.2422963559@web30505.mail.mud.yahoo.com

REMEMBER OUR TROOPS
Lest we forget - We are enjoying our cell phones, our lunch dates,our appointments, our clothing, our hair appointments, and our walks down the street because of men like these!


cid:19.2422963559@web30505.mail.mud.yahoo.com
cid:20.2422963559@web30505.mail.mud.yahoo.com
cid:21.2422963559@web30505.mail.mud.yahoo.com
cid:22.2422963559@web30505.mail.mud.yahoo.com
cid:23.2422963559@web30505.mail.mud.yahoo.com
cid:24.2422963559@web30505.mail.mud.yahoo.com
cid:25.2422963559@web30505.mail.mud.yahoo.com
cid:26.2422963559@web30505.mail.mud.yahoo.com

Christmas Trees Around the World

Christmas at Rockefeller Center in New York (?N & S Silverman/Taxi/Getty Images)


Before the ball drops in Times Square , the Big Apple turns on its
holiday charm with the Christmas tree in Rockefeller Center .

A holiday tree is shown lit in front of the U.S. Capitol building (?Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
The Capitol Christmas tree in Washington , D.C. , is decorated with 3,000
ornaments that are the handiwork of U.S. schoolchildren. Encircling
evergreens in the 'Pathway of Peace' represent the 50 U.S. states.
Italy,Umbria, Gubbio town,  Christmas tree on hillside (?Fantuz Olimpio/SIME-4Corners Image    s)
The world's largest Christmas tree display rises up the slopes
of Monte Ingino outside of Gubbio, in Italy 's Umbria region.
Composed of about 500 lights connected by 40,000 feet of wire,
the 'tree' is a modern marvel for an ancient city

A 100-meter tall Christmas tree is illuminated on the wall of a Tokyo hotel for the upcoming holidays. (?Yoshikazu Tsuno/AFP/Getty Images)
A Christmas tree befitting Tokyo 's nighttime neon display is
projected onto the exterior of the Grand Prince Hotel Akasaka.
Czech Republic,  Prague, Teyn Church at Christmas time (?Schmid Reinhard/SIME-4Corners Images)
Illuminating the Gothic facades of Prague's Old Town Square,
and casting its glow over the manger display of the famous
Christmas market, is a grand tree cut in the Sumava mountains
in the southern Czech Republic .
Glass Christmas tree in Murano (?Sandra Raccanello/4Corners Images)
Venice 's Murano Island renowned throughout the world
for its quality glasswork is home to the tallest glass tree
in the world. Sculpted by master glass blower Simone
Cenedese, the artistic Christmas tree is a modern
reflection of the holiday season.
A Christmas tree is shining at the Manezh Square in Moscow (?Maxim Marmur/AFP/Getty Images)
Moscow celebrates Christmas according to the Russian Orthodox
calendar on Jan. 7. For weeks beforehand, the city is alive with
festivities in anticipation of Father Frost's arrival on his magical
troika with the Snow Maiden.

He and his helper deliver gifts under

the New Year tree, or yolka, which is traditionally a fir.
A 72-meter-tall Christmas tree stands at Praca do Comercio in downtown Lisbon (?Francisco Leong/AFP/Getty Images)
The largest Christmas tree in Europe (more than 230 feet tall)
can be found in the Praça do Comércio in Lisbon , Portugal .
Thousands of lights adorn the tree, adding to the special
enchantment of the city during the holiday season.
Chapel in winter, christmas  tree,  K lais, near Garmisch-Partenkirchen in the Karwendel mountains (?Paul Freytag/zefa/Corbis)
'Oh Christmas tree, oh Christmas tree': Even in its humblest attire,
aglow beside a tiny chapel in Germany 's Karwendel mountains,
a Christmas tree is a wondrous sight.
Large Christmas tree inside the  Galeries Lafayette department store in Paris (?Marco Cristofori/Corbis)
Ooh la la Galeries Lafayette! In Paris , even the Christmas trees are chic.
With its monumental, baroque dome, plus 10 stories of lights and
high fashion, it's no surprise this show-stopping department store draws
more visitors than the Louvre and the Eiffel Tower
Faithful surround the Christmas tree in St. Peter
In addition to the Vatican 's heavenly evergreen, St. Peter's Square
in Rome hosts a larger-than-life nativity scene in front of the obelisk.

Christmas Tree   at Puerta del Sol in Madrid (?Marco Cristofori/Corbis)
The Christmas tree that greets revelers at the Puerta del Sol
is dressed for a party. Madrid 's two-week celebration makes
millionaires along with merrymakers. On Dec. 22, a lucky citizen
will win El Gordo (the fat one), the world's biggest lottery.

Trafalgar Square at night with Christmas tree, London (?Romilly Lockyer/The Image Bank/Getty Images)
A token of gratitude for Britain 's aid during World War II,
the Christmas tree in London 's Trafalgar Square has been
the annual gift of the people of Norway since 1947.
The Romer and Christmas tree at night in Frankfurt, Germany (?Wilfried Krecichwost/Stone/Getty Images)
Drink a glass of gluhwein from the holiday market at the Romer
Frankfurt's city hall since 1405 and enjoy a taste of Christmas past.
Three trees in forest decorated with lights, location unknown  (?Werran/Ochsner/Getty Images)


Against a backdrop of tall, shadowy firs, a rainbow trio of
Christmas trees lights up the night (location unknown).




There is one Christmas Carol that has always baffled me.
What in the world do leaping lords, French hens,
swimming swans, and especially the partridge who won't come out
of the pear tree have to do with Christmas?


This week, I found out.

From 1558 until 1829, Roman Catholics in England were
not permitted to practice their faith openly. Someone
during that era wrote this carol as a catechism song for young Catholics.
It has two levels of meaning: the surface meaning
plus a hidden meaning known only to members of their church. Each
element in the carol has a code word for a religious reality
which the children could remember.


-The partridge in a pear tree was Jesus Christ.


-Two turtle doves were the Old and New Testaments.


-Three French hens stood for faith, hope and love.


-The four calling birds were the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke & John.


-The five golden rings recalled the Torah or Law, the first five books of the Old Testament.


-The six geese a-laying stood for the six days of creation.


-Seven swans a-swimming represented the sevenfold gifts of the Holy Spirit--Prophesy, Serving, Teaching,
Exhortation, Contribution, Leadership, and Mercy.

-The eight maids a-milking were the eight beatitudes.


-Nine ladies dancing were the nine fruits of the Holy Spirit--Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness,
Faithfulness,

Gentleness, and Self Control.

-The ten lords a-leaping were the ten commandments.


-The eleven pipers piping stood for the eleven faithful disciples.


-The twelve drummers drumming symbolized the twelve points of belief in the Apostles' Creed.


So there is your history for today. This knowledge was shared with me and I found it interesting and enlightening and now I know how that strange song became a Christmas Carol...so pass it on if you wish.'

Merry (Twelve Days of) Christmas Everyone

CHRISTMAS AT ARLINGTON CEMETERY
I wonder why the press hasn't enlightened the public about it??

Arlington National Cemetery




Rest easy, sleep well my brothers.

Know the line has held, your job is done.

Rest easy, sleep well.

Others have taken up where you fell, the line has held.

Peace, peace, and farewell...




Readers may be interested to know that these wreaths -- some 5,000 -- are donated by the Worcester Wreath Co. of Harrington , Maine . The owner, Merrill Worcester, not only provides the wreaths, but covers the trucking expense as well. He's done this since 1992. A wonderful guy. Also, most years, groups of Maine school kids combine an educational trip to DC with this event to help out. Making this even more remarkable is the fact that Harrington is in one the poorest parts of the state.

Please share this with everyone on your address list. You hear too much about the bad things people do. Everyone should hear about this.

Wednesday, December 17, 2008

It’s a Narnia Christmas

Published: December 17, 2008

EVERY Christmas, I re-read C .S. Lewis’s novel “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.” The holiday seems like the ideal time for an excursion into my imaginative past, and so I return to the paperback boxed set of “The Chronicles of Narnia” that my parents gave me for Christmas when I was 10. For me, Narnia is intimately linked with the season.


Jeffrey Fisher

I’m not alone. In Britain, stage productions of “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe” are a holiday staple, for good reason. The book rests on a foundation of Christian imagery; its most famous scene is of a little girl standing under a lamppost in a snowy wood; and Father Christmas himself makes an appearance, after the lion god Aslan frees Narnia from an evil witch who decreed that it be “always winter, and never Christmas.”

That I’m not a Christian doesn’t much hinder my enjoyment of either the holiday or the book, but the presence of Father Christmas bothered many of Lewis’s friends, including J.R.R. Tolkien. Tolkien, whose Middle-earth was free of the legends and religions of our world, objected to Narnia’s hodgepodge of motifs: the fauns and dryads lifted from classic mythology, the Germanic dwarfs and contemporary schoolboy slang lumped in with the obvious Christian symbolism.

But Lewis embraced the Middle Ages’ indiscriminate mixing of stories and motifs from seemingly incompatible sources. The medievals, he once wrote, enthusiastically adopted a habit from late antiquity of “gathering together and harmonizing views of very different origin: building a syncretistic model not only out of Platonic, Aristotelian and Stoical, but out of pagan and Christian elements.”

Christmas as we now know it is much the same sort of conglomeration, and when people call for a return to its pure, authentic roots, they’re missing an essential quality of the holiday. Narnia is a mongrel thing, and so is Christmas. As is often the case, this mongrelizing is the source of its strength.

Complaints about the corruption, dilution or fundamental impiety of Christmas have been made for centuries. The Puritans so mistrusted the holiday that its celebration was outlawed in 17th-century Boston. Around the same time, the German theologian Paul Ernst Jablonski asserted that Christmas amounted to a paganization of the authentic faith because the date, Dec. 25, had been appropriated from a festival for a Roman solar god.

(Some Christian scholars, including the current pope, have actually argued that the appropriation went the other way around, and the solar festival was in fact a heathen bid to co-opt the feast day of an increasingly popular monotheistic cult.)

On the other side, non-Christians who relish the holiday like to point out that many Christmas icons — the decorated tree, the Yule log, mistletoe — were originally sacred to Celtic and Northern European pagans.

Yet even the Yuletide customs that are supposedly pagan holdovers must be taken with a grain of salt. We have no written records of the cultures from which they supposedly derive; everything we know about them comes second- and thirdhand from Roman or Christian writers pursuing their own agendas and relying, for the most part, on oral sources.

For decades, historians and folklorists have understood that oral traditions are not very reliable when they refer to anything reputed to have happened more than 100 years ago. What’s presented as hoary legend is in fact more likely a justification of present conditions than an accurate account of the past.

Druids, for example, have over the years been refashioned as the descendants of Noah, as bardic romantics, even as sexual egalitarians; in fact, much of what people think they know about the ancient beliefs and rites of Northern Europeans was concocted by early 20th-century occultist outfits like the Ancient Druid Order and Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn.

The British historian Ronald Hutton describes this sort of thing as indicative of “the power of literary fiction over fact.” We believe what we choose to believe, and Christmas is no exception.

In recent years, popular histories like “The Battle for Christmas” and “Inventing Christmas,” have shown that many of the holiday’s most hallowed rites, traditions we think of as extending back at least as far as C. S. Lewis’s beloved Middle Ages, were invented less than 200 years ago by such 19th-century literary figures as Washington Irving, Clement Clarke Moore and, of course, Charles Dickens. More than Christian or pagan, Christmas is a Victorian fabrication.

Is this, though, such a bad thing? The unifying principle of Narnia, unlike the vast complex of invented history behind Middle-earth, isn’t an illusion of authenticity or purity. Rather, what binds all the elements of Lewis’s fantasy together is something more like love. Narnia consists of every story, legend, myth or image — pagan or Christian — that moved the author over the course of his life.

Our contemporary, semi-secular Christmas is similarly a collection of everything yearned for: warmth, plenty, peace, family, conviviality. Like Narnia, the holiday is a fantasy, but there are times when a fantasy is exactly what you need.

Laura Miller, a staff writer at Salon, is the author of “The Magician’s Book: A Skeptic’s Adventures in Narnia.”

Monday, December 15, 2008

Left and Right, Piling On

By Bill Kristol, The New York Times

Published December 15th, 2008

In 1953, the president of General Motors, Charles Wilson, was nominated by President Eisenhower to be secretary of defense. During his confirmation hearings, Wilson was asked if he’d be able, as defense secretary, to make decisions contrary to the interests of G.M. He answered yes, but added that he couldn’t imagine such a situation, because “for years I thought what was good for our country was good for General Motors, and vice versa.”

It wasn’t a ridiculous view. It was widely shared — by big-business-loving Republicans and big-union-embracing Democrats, by big-car-driving suburbanites and big-tank-occupying soldiers.

Today, G.M., Ford and Chrysler get no respect. Maybe they don’t deserve much. Detroit has many sins to answer for, and it’s been doing plenty of answering. But — and I say this as someone who grew up in non-car-driving family in New York and who is the furthest thing from an auto aficionado — there is a kind of undeserved disdain, even casual contempt, that seems to characterize the attitude of the political and media elites toward the American auto industry.

As Warren Brown, who writes about cars for The Washington Post, recently put it, “There is a feeling in this country — apparent in the often condescending, dismissive way Detroit’s automobile companies have been treated on Capitol Hill — that people who work with their hands and the companies that employ them are inferior to those who work with their minds and plow profit from information. How else to explain the clearly disparate treatment given to companies such as Citigroup and General Motors?”

Now there are other ways to explain the disparate treatment of G.M. and Citigroup. Finance is different from manufacturing, and banks from auto companies. It may be that the case for a huge bank bailout was strong, and that the case for a more modest auto package is not. Still, it seems to me true that the financial big shots haven’t been treated nearly as roughly in Congress or in the media as the auto executives, who have done nothing remotely as irresponsible as their Wall Street counterparts.

What’s more, in their disdain for the American auto companies, the left and right wings of the establishment agree. Of course, the particular foci of criticism are different — the left berates the auto companies’ management, the right the United Automobile Workers. But even on the left, while Democratic politicians still try to look out for the interests of the U.A.W., there’s not really that much sympathy for the workers. The ascendant environmentalists disdain (to say the least) the internal combustion engine and everyone associated with it. Most of today’s limousine liberals are embarrassed by their political alliance with the workers who built those limousines.

Meanwhile, on the right, free-market analysts have explained that our regulatory scheme of fuel-efficiency standards is counterproductive. But despite the fact that the government is partly responsible for the Big Three’s problems, the right hasn’t really been stirred to enthusiastically promote a deregulatory agenda to help the auto companies. What excites it is mobilizing to oppose bailouts for unionized workers.

Last week, Senate Republicans picked a fight with the U.A.W. on union pay scales — despite the fact that it’s the legacy benefits for retirees, not pay for current workers, that’s really hurting Detroit, and despite the additional fact that, in any case, labor amounts to only about 10 percent of the cost of a car. But the Republicans were fighting Big Labor! They were standing firm against bailouts! Some of the same conservatives who (correctly, in my view) made the case for $700 billion for Wall Street pitched a fit over $14 billion in loans for the automakers.

So Senate Republicans chose to threaten to filibuster the House-passed legislation embodying the George Bush-Nancy Pelosi deal. The bill would have allowed President Bush to name a car czar, who could have begun to force concessions from all sides. It also would have averted for now a collapse of the auto industry, and shifted difficult decisions to the Obama administration.

Instead, Bush will now probably have to use the financial rescue funds to save G.M. — instead of being able to draw from sums previously authorized for the green transformation of the auto industry, a fight he had won in the negotiations with Pelosi. And Senate Republicans now run the risk of being portrayed as Marie Antoinettes with Southern accents.

Whichever party can liberate itself from its well-worn rut to propose policies that help both American businesses and workers has a great opportunity. That party’s leaders could begin by offering management and labor at the Big Three a little more sympathy, and heaping upon them a little less calumny. Where’s Charles Wilson when we need him?

Sunday, December 14, 2008

Let's Fight Discrimination Sensibly

By Me

A lot of us were angry, disappointed, surprised, and disgusted when Prop 8 passed in November. BUT, no matter what our beliefs, we all have a right to express our opinions and we must try to live together in harmony. That means expressing our opinions not only clearly and effectively, but also respectfully.

The main No on Prop 8 campaign was a professional campaign and quite responsibly run. I should know; I spent many a night volunteering with it. However, in the aftermath of Prop 8's passing, a decentralized movement has taken form that has had mostly positive effects (witness the day of peaceful marches shortly after the election). Those marches sent a powerful message that we will not stop pushing for the right of people in California to marry whom they choose.

However, this decentralized movement has also spawned a very ugly, very dark side. It includes demonizing Mormons and Blacks as well as seeking out those who contributed to the Yes on 8 campaign and making their contributions the subject of public ostracizations. Needless to say, this kind of harassment can seriously impact a person's life and, as we shall see, livelihood.

For one of the most heartbreaking of these misguided protests, I point to Steve Lopez's column today in the LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lopez14-2008dec14,0,5995847.column. A woman, raised a Mormon, made a small $100 private contribution to the Yes on 8 campaign. She happens to be a manager of El Coyote, one of the most popular Mexican restaurants in LA. A group of people angry about Prop 8 identified her publicly using campaign contribution records and then descended upon the restaurant where she works, harassing customers and driving away business. Their business was almost immediately crushed, and the woman's relationship with her formerly sizable gay clientele has been destroyed. She is tottering on the edge of a nervous breakdown: the restaurant is owned by her mother.

I say, since when the hell is it a crime to express your opinion? This woman did nothing wrong; they simply disagree with her. These people are doing nothing but piling on more hatred into a situation in which peace, persistence, and resolve are needed much more than public witch-hunts and fingerpointing. Remember how much bitterness was stirred up back during the campaign season when each side continued to steal each other's signs? That was people saying "I do not respect your right to express your opinion." It produced nothing but neighbor-on-neighbor enmity and did nothing to further either side's cause.

This is the same idea, only magnified and far uglier. These people, though they are fighting a difficult battle for something dear and deserved, need to get their heads out of their asses pronto and keep this in perspective. I have no doubt that one day they will again have the right to marry, but why leave a trail of tears on the way? It's just not worth going about it that way. And what's more, it's bad P.R.

Let's be civil.

Two Cheers for Rod Blagojevich

This is quite a column:


By Frank Rich, The New York Times

Published December 13, 2008

ROD BLAGOJEVICH is the perfect holiday treat for a country fighting off depression. He gift-wraps the ugliness of corruption in the mirthful garb of farce. From a safe distance outside Illinois, it’s hard not to laugh at the “culture of Chicago,” where even the president-elect’s Senate seat is just another commodity to be bought and sold.

But the entertainment is escapist only up to a point. What went down in the Land of Lincoln is just the reductio ad absurdum of an American era where both entitlement and corruption have been the calling cards of power. Blagojevich’s alleged crimes pale next to the larger scandals of Washington and Wall Street. Yet those who promoted and condoned the twin national catastrophes of reckless war in Iraq and reckless gambling in our markets have largely escaped the accountability that now seems to await the Chicago punk nabbed by the United States attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald.

The Republican partisans cheering Fitzgerald’s prosecution of a Democrat have forgotten his other red-letter case in this decade, his conviction of Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney’s chief of staff. Libby was far bigger prey. He was part of the White House Iraq Group, the task force of propagandists that sold an entire war to America on false pretenses. Because Libby was caught lying to a grand jury and federal prosecutors as well as to the public, he was sentenced to two and a half years in prison. But President Bush commuted the sentence before he served a day.

Fitzgerald was not pleased. “It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals,” he said at the time.

Not in the Bush era, man. Though the president had earlier vowed to fire anyone involved in leaking the classified identity of a C.I.A. officer, Valerie Plame Wilson — the act Libby tried to cover up by committing perjury — both Libby and his collaborator in leaking, Karl Rove, remained in place.

Accountability wasn’t remotely on Bush’s mind. If anything, he was more likely to reward malfeasance and incompetence, as exemplified by his gifting of the Presidential Medal of Freedom to George Tenet, L. Paul Bremer and Gen. Tommy Franks, three of the most culpable stooges of the Iraq fiasco.

Bush had arrived in Washington vowing to inaugurate a new, post-Clinton era of “personal responsibility” in which “people are accountable for their actions.” Eight years later he holds himself accountable for nothing. In his recent exit interview with Charles Gibson, he presented himself as a passive witness to disastrous events, the Forrest Gump of his own White House. He wishes “the intelligence had been different” about W.M.D. in Iraq — as if his administration hadn’t hyped and manipulated that intelligence. As for the economic meltdown, he had this to say: “I’m sorry it’s happening, of course.”

If you want to trace the bipartisan roots of the morally bankrupt culture that has now found its culmination in our financial apocalypse, a good place to start is late 2001 and 2002, just as the White House contemplated inflating Saddam’s W.M.D. That’s when we learned about another scandal with cooked books, Enron. This was a supreme embarrassment for Bush, whose political career had been bankrolled by the Enron titan Kenneth Lay, or, as Bush nicknamed him back in Texas, “Kenny Boy.”

The chagrined president eventually convened a one-day “economic summit” photo op in August 2002 (held in Waco, Tex., lest his vacation in Crawford be disrupted). But while some perpetrators of fraud at Enron would ultimately pay a price, any lessons from its demise, including a need for safeguards, were promptly forgotten by one and all in the power centers of both federal and corporate governance.

Enron was an energy company that had diversified to trade in derivatives — financial instruments that were bets on everything from exchange rates to the weather. It was also brilliant in devising shell companies that kept hundreds of millions of dollars of debt off the company’s bottom line and away from the prying eyes of shareholders.

Regulators had failed to see the iceberg in Enron’s path and so had Enron’s own accountants at Arthur Andersen, a corporate giant whose parallel implosion had its own casualty list of some 80,000 jobs. Despite Bush’s post-Enron call for “a new ethic of personal responsibility in the business community,” the exact opposite has happened in the six years since. Warren Buffett’s warning in 2003 that derivatives were “financial weapons of mass destruction” was politely ignored. Much larger companies than Enron figured out how to place even bigger and more impenetrable gambles on derivatives, all the while piling up unseen debt. They built castles of air on a far grander scale than Kenny Boy could have imagined, doing so with sheer stupidity and cavalier, greed-fueled carelessness rather than fraud.

The most stupendous example as measured in dollars is Citigroup, now the recipient of potentially the biggest taxpayer bailout to date. The price tag could be some $300 billion — 20 times the proposed first installment of the scuttled Detroit bailout. Citigroup’s toxic derivatives, often tied to subprime mortgages, metastasized without appearing on the balance sheet. Both the company’s former chief executive, Charles O. Prince III, and his senior adviser, Robert Rubin, the former Clinton Treasury secretary, have said they didn’t know the size of the worthless holdings until they’d spiraled into the tens of billions of dollars.

Once again, regulators slept. Once again, credit-rating agencies, typified this time by Moody’s, kept giving a thumbs-up to worthless paper until it was too late. There was just so much easy money to be made, and no one wanted to be left out. As Michael Lewis concludes in his brilliant account of “the end” of Wall Street in Portfolio magazine: “Something for nothing. It never loses its charm.”

But if all bubbles and panics are alike, this one, the worst since the Great Depression, also carried the DNA of our own time. Enron had been a Citigroup client. In a now-forgotten footnote to that scandal, Rubin was discovered to have made a phone call to a former colleague in the Treasury Department to float the idea of asking credit-rating agencies to delay downgrading Enron’s debt. This inappropriate lobbying never went anywhere, but Rubin neither apologized nor learned any lessons. “I can see why that call might be questioned,” he wrote in his 2003 memoir, “but I would make it again.” He would say the same this year about his performance at Citigroup during its collapse.

The Republican side of the same tarnished coin is Phil Gramm, the former senator from Texas. Like Rubin, he helped push through banking deregulation when in government in the 1990s, then cashed in on the relaxed rules by joining the banking industry once he left Washington. Gramm is at UBS, which also binged on credit-default swaps and is now receiving a $60 billion bailout from the Swiss government.

It’s a sad snapshot of our century’s establishment that Rubin has been an economic adviser to Barack Obama and Gramm to John McCain. And that both captains of finance remain unapologetic, unaccountable and still at their banks, which have each lost more than 70 percent of their shareholders’ value this year and have collectively announced more than 90,000 layoffs so far.

The Times calls its chilling investigative series on the financial failures “The Reckoning,” but the reckoning is largely for the rest of us — taxpayers, shareholders, the countless laid-off employees — not the corporate and political leaders who led us into the quagmire. It’s a replay of the Iraq equation: the troops, the Iraqi people and American taxpayers have borne the harshest costs while Bush and company retire to their McMansions.

As our outgoing president passes the buck for his failures — all that bad intelligence — so do leaders in the private and public sectors who enabled the economic debacle. Gramm has put the blame for the subprime fiasco on “predatory borrowers.” Rubin has blamed a “perfect storm” of economic factors, as has Sam Zell, the magnate who bought and maimed the Tribune newspapers in a highly leveraged financial stunt that led to a bankruptcy filing last week. Donald Trump has invoked a standard “act of God” clause to avoid paying a $40 million construction loan on his huge new project in Chicago.

After a while they all start to sound like O. J. Simpson, who when at last held accountable for some of his behavior told a Las Vegas judge this month, “In no way did I mean to hurt anybody.” Or perhaps they are channeling Donald Rumsfeld, whose famous excuse for his failure to secure post-invasion Iraq, “Stuff happens,” could be the epitaph of our age.

Our next president, like his predecessor, is promising “a new era of responsibility and accountability.” We must hope he means it. Meanwhile, we have the governor he leaves behind in Illinois to serve as our national whipping boy, the one betrayer of the public trust who could actually end up paying for his behavior. The surveillance tapes of Blagojevich are so fabulous it seems a tragedy we don’t have similar audio records of the bigger fish who have wrecked the country. But in these hard times we’ll take what we can get.

Monday, December 8, 2008

They Hate Us — and India Is Us

Published: December 8, 2008

London - AS an open, diverse and at times chaotic democracy, India has long been a target for terrorism. From the assassination of Mohandas Gandhi in 1948 to the recent attacks in Mumbai, it has faced attempts to change its national character by force. None has yet succeeded. Despite its manifest social failings, India remains the developing world’s most successful experiment in free, plural, large-scale political collaboration.

The Mumbai attacks were transformative, because in them, unlike previous outrages in India, the rich were caught: not only Western visitors in the nation’s magnificent financial capital but also Indian bankers, business owners and socialites. This had symbolic power, as the terrorists knew it would.

However, I recently saw a televised forum in which members of the public vented their fury against India’s politicians for their failure to act, and it soon became apparent the victims were poor as well as rich. One survivor, Shameem Khan — instantly identifiable by his name and his embroidered cap as a Muslim — told how six members of his extended family had been shot dead. Still in shock, he said: “A calamity has fallen on my house. What shall I do?” His neighbors had helped pay for the funeral. Like most of India’s 150 million Muslims, Mr. Khan is staunchly patriotic. The city’s Muslim Council refused to let the terrorists be buried in its graveyards.

When these well-planned attacks unfolded, it was clear to anyone with experience of India that they were not homegrown, and almost certainly originated from Pakistan. Yet the reaction of the world’s news media was to rely on the outmoded idea of Pakistan-India hyphenation — as if a thriving and prosperous democracy of over a billion people must be compared only to an imploded state that is having to be bailed out by the I.M.F. Was Pakistan to blame, asked many pundits, or was India at fault because of its treatment of minority groups?

The terrorists themselves offered little explanation, and made no clear demands. Yet even as the siege continued, commentators were making chilling deductions on their behalf: their actions were because of American foreign policy, or Afghanistan, or the harassment of Indian Muslims. Personal moral responsibility was removed from the players in the atrocity. When officials said that the killers came from the Pakistani terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba, it was taken as proof that India’s misdeeds in the Kashmir Valley were the cause.

These misdeeds are real, as are India’s other social and political failings (I recently met a Kashmiri man whose father and sister had died at the hands of the Indian security forces). But there is no sane reason to think Lashkar-e-Taiba would shut down if the situation in Kashmir improved. Its literature is much concerned with establishing a caliphate in Central Asia, and murdering those who insult the Prophet. Its leader, Hafiz Saeed, who lives on a large estate outside Lahore bought with Saudi Money, goes about his business with minimal interference from the Pakistani government.

Lashkar-e-Taiba is part of the International Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders (the Qaeda franchise). Mr. Saeed’s hatreds are catholic — his bugbears include Hindus, Shiites and women who wear bikinis. He regards democracy as “a Jewish and Christian import from Europe,” and considers suicide attacks to be in accordance with Islam. He has a wider strategy: “At this time our contest is Kashmir. Let’s see when the time comes. Our struggle with the Jews is always there.” As he told his followers in Karachi at a rally in 2000: “There can’t be any peace while India remains intact. Cut them, cut them — cut them so much that they kneel before you and ask for mercy.” In short, he has an explicit political desire to create a state of war between the religious communities in India and beyond, and bring on the endgame.

Like other exponents of Islamist extremism, he has a view of the world that does not tolerate doubt or ambiguity: his opponents are guilty, and must be killed. I have met other radicals like Mr. Saeed, men who live in a dimension of absolute certainty and have contempt for the moral relativism of those who seek to excuse them. To achieve their ends, it is necessary to indoctrinate boys in the hatred of Hindus, Americans and Jews, and dispatch them on suicide missions. It is unlikely that any of the militants who were sent from Karachi to Mumbai — young men from poor rural backgrounds whose families were paid for their sacrifice — had ever met a Jew before they tortured and killed Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg and his wife, Rivka, who was several months pregnant, at the Mumbai Jewish center.

America’s so-called war on terror has been, in many respects, a catastrophe. In Pakistan, it has been chronically mishandled, leading to the radicalization of areas in the north that were previously peaceful. Yet links between the military, the intelligence services and the jihadis have remained intact: Lashkar-e-Taiba is merely one of a number of extremist organizations that continues to function.

The prime solution to the present crisis is to force the closing of terrorist training outfits in Pakistan, and apply the law to those who organize and finance operations like the Mumbai massacres. Hafiz Saeed and other suspects should be sent to India to stand trial. The remark by Pakistan’s president, Asif Ali Zardari (a man whose history of shady business dealing makes him demonstrably unfit for high, or even low, office), that he did not think the terrorists came from Pakistan would be funny if it were not tragic.

The United States gives around $1 billion a year in military aid to Islamabad; that is leverage. It does the people of Pakistan no favors for Washington to allow their leaders to continue with the strategy of perpetual diversion, asking India to be patient while denying the true nature of the immediate terrorist threat. I received this e-mail message recently from a friend in Karachi: “Nowhere can get more depressing than Pakistan these days — barring some African failed states and Afghanistan.”